ZeroHour

Search: “llm-agents”

3 stories

BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure

BenchShield uses lifecycle-model-backed instrumentation to detect reward hacking in LLM-agent benchmarks, lifting full-chain recall to 77-100% at up to 65% lower cost.

The framework grounds reward-hacking detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events, combining a static phase-aware taint analysis with runtime infrastructure-side evidence attribution. Evaluation used a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories drawn from more than 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks. BenchShield improves full-chain recall from 23-94% to 77-100% and same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, cuts per-task cost by up to 65%, and achieves 96% accuracy detecting reward hacking at runtime.

arXiv cs.CR · 5d agoAI safety & security1

What Does an LLM-Agent Leaderboard Rank Actually Compare?

A methodological study shows close LLM-agent leaderboard rank gaps on SWE-bench and similar benchmarks often do not support superiority claims.

The paper defines an estimand-aware pairwise procedure for comparing agents, checking common support and applying explicit uncertainty rules and practical margins. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are frequently unresolved, and proxy labels or utility rules can change which system is selected. The authors argue a leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation but does not by itself justify pairwise superiority conclusions.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL · 8d agoAI research

PlannerForge: LLM Agents for Scenario-Based Testing of Motion Planners in Autonomous Driving

PlannerForge unifies scenario-based testing of autonomous driving motion planners in one LLM-agent framework, outperforming prior baselines.

PlannerForge is an LLM-agent framework that covers the full scenario-based testing pipeline for autonomous driving systems, spanning scenario generation, selection, modification, routing, planner testing, plus new enhancement and benchmarking stages. In evaluations with 10 off-the-shelf LLMs, best-per-task scores range from 0.88 to 1.00, and open-source 20-35B backends such as Qwen3.6:35B match commercial APIs on most tasks. End-to-end chaining retains 83% (commercial) and 78% (open) of seed queries, beats Scenario Factory 2.0 on executable generation, and cost-tuning lifts planner success from 50.4% to 70.2% while cutting collisions from 19.0% to 8.4%.

Hugging Face daily papers · 8d agoAI research